Using the phrase "intellectual diversity" is itself an act of courage in the academic arena.

I once uttered "intellectual diversity" in a debate with a leftie (I use that term endearingly, of course).

The "discussion" ended with a link to an explanation that the phrase is code for a neoconservative plot.

Later, in that comments thread, there's this:

Scott M said... If "intellectual diversity" and "personal responsibility" have been deemed as code words of right-wing oppression, just what the hell words or phrases do they use when they are trying to talk about intellectual diversity or personal responsibility?...

The 'code-word' argument is always the last desperate ploy of the losing side in a debate. It basically means that your position is so devoid of merit, you can only express it by assigning new meanings to clearly-understood words. What a bunch of intellectual cowards.

I'm somewhat sympathetic to Agent Smith's argument that disciplinary politics play a greater role in hiring than political politics.

I remember my Classics professor arriving late for class: "I was in a huge argument with the Platonists."

But let me quote this:

There are also specialized areas recognized by the discipline-for example, philosophy of law, philosophy of science, philosophy of religion, existentialism, Asian philosophy, feminist philosophy, and aesthetics, to name only a few. Notice that one's party registration is not of any concern.

No, but what is of concern is specialization in an abstruse field in which the vast majority of academics will make no contribution to greater knowledge. This is a horde of locusts that feeds on the seed corn.

Some small number of brilliant philosophers who specialize in aesthetics is valuable. A large number of state-supported philosophers who specialize in aesthetics at universities with 5-digit tuition bills is hard to fathom.

I studied art. I know about pointlessness. It was a lot of fun, but it was pointless.

The linked argument could be bracing if they used it across the board. But somehow I don't see the author telling the Vice-Provost for Diversity how his department has a white male who specializes in classical philosophy, a white male who specializes in modern analtyic philosophy, a white male who specializes in continental philosophy, and a white male who specializes in philosophy of law, and that's all the diversity they need.

The phrase "code words" was how you were called a racist by the Demos if you said something evil like, "states' rights".

Ann Althouse quoted...

Scott M said... If "intellectual diversity" and "personal responsibility" have been deemed as code words of right-wing oppression, just what the hell words or phrases do they use when they are trying to talk about intellectual diversity or personal responsibility?...

Irene said... @Scott M, "Social Justice."

Actually, the Lefties want nothing to do with intellectual diversity or personal responsibility; that's why Uncle Saul's Rules are so popular with them. If you have personal responsibility, then people won't go running to Uncle Sugar to solve all their problems and intellectual diversity ends up badly for them because they always lose the argument.

PS I'd rather die than contradict my pal Irene, but Social Justice is the term they use when they want to talk about how they get to determine who gets what under their New Order.

However, some years back we had a storm in a teacup about a history professor who was quoted as saying that "anyone who bombed the Pentagon would get his vote!" OK, the obvious retort to that is that "anyone who bombs UNM will get my vote!"

Now, this professor also did not like that one of his colleagues - a woman of a conservative bent - was allowed to speak her mind at a seminar, so he stood at the back of the room making loud and disruptive remarks while she gave her speech, including calling out for someone to get a rope and hang the *@%&!.

This professor is still employed at UNM, and this I do not understand.

You know what - intellectual diversity is great in sociology, psychology (some types), anthropology, literature.

But when it comes to physics, biology, chemistry - "intellectual diversity" is a scam for undermining real research and knowledge.

Teaching intelligent design in biology class is NOT "intellectual diversity". The theory of evolution, however, is hard science.

Similarly, as far as we know, from a physics point of view, the Big Bang is when time began. There is intellectual diversity regarding the mechanics of it, and regarding whether its just one bang in a series of bangs, and the cosmology around that is very complex - but questioning the physics with other physics is fine. But questioning it with creationism..is not.

I mean, go ahead and teach intelligent design and/or creationism but keep it away from science class. Have a separate religion class or something.

When you're talking about code words, you can't get any more code-wordy than "social justice". It has absolutely no inherent meaning. It's a one-size-fits-all placeholder that stands for anything the user wants it to mean. And what the user usually wants it to mean is taking away your freedom (or your money) and imposing their idea of what's right onto you. But it's okay, because it's "social justice" and those words sound so good together.

Responsibility, on the other hand, has a very specific meaning. And personal responsibility narrows it even further, zeroing in like a laser beam on exactly where the responsibility lies.

PaulV mentioned deconstruction in another thread and whether some religion prof had signed on to the philosophe du jour Derrida's radical program which amounted to "dichotomies are arbitrary."

Right and wrong, peace and war, man and woman, west and east,north and south, good and bad, sickness and health, rich and poor, black and white, day and night, all arbitrarily defined, so if we put these in a blender we've get a smoother soup to serve the students.

Conservative just means the older binaries still make some sense.

Progressive just means nothing makes sense.

So, if we all agree that everything is nonsense, then we're ever so progressive.

And that will cost you fifty thousand dollars a year!

At least some alternatives that hang on to SOME distinctions should be served, but that's just me! SOME sense of a universal right and wrong, here and there.

Planned parenthood people trying to help out sex slavers -- just trying to be of service! That makes no sense to me.

This "Free Exchange on Campus" site and group if anything only reinforce the impression that academia is dominated by leftists. Notice which groups support it.

That having been said I'm not keen on imposing "quotas" to make sure there are enough conservatives (by which we probably mean classic liberals). The issue then is not "hire more conservatives!" but making sure political-social ideology is not skewing the hiring process.

This professor argues it's only about disciplines and making sure every area is covered. Sounds reasonable enough. So how and why is academia dominated by the left?

Scott M, the problem is more with the way we understand life and construct language than with physics.

The word "before" is the key word.

We know from relativity that time doesn't elapse in the same way in every reference frame. Inside a singularity, that "before" might well be infinite, but curled up tightly such that a conceptual "before" doesn't exist.

Unfortunately, most books that try to explain this try to analogize time with space, then draw an example on space (ants on a two dimensional word, and so on) but that is actually more misleading than explanatory. The reason being - spatial dimensions do not have an absolute zero. You can define the zero wherever you want. You can't do that with time. Yes, you CAN do that with the PASSAGE of time, but not with time itself.

The key difference here is to distinguish between time, and the PASSAGE of time.

The campaign for 'diversity' is a liberal ploy to secure the teaching of left-wing propaganda in the classroom, plain and simple. The authors of the campaign hide behind the mask of educational reformer, but what they seek is nothing short of educational control.

I'm fine with that, Ankur. Time isn't really the issue for me. There had to be a process by which the event happened. In the process certain things had to happen in a specific order or we don't get galaxies, stars, planets, and, later, koala bears.

My question has always been...how did the process start? What was the impetus? How did THAT start?

Either way, it comes back down to faith. Faith in a creator or faith in a set of assumptions based on some physically verifiable (most not verifiable) observations.

The question of what God was doing before he created this universe troubles me less than what was going on before the Big Bang.

It's not sly Scott. There is a profound ignorance about time and the "beginning" of our universe. Readily admitted by all involved. There used to be a reluctance about what happened "before", because people didn't know how to approach the problem. That's changing, but we're still just groping in the dark. It's possible we'll never know. Maybe even likely.

Ankur - what is missing from academia is any love for this country. No love & admiration for the men & institutions that made this country great. Instead we get all kinds of "gender studies". Do away with that and let's bring on Andrew Carnegie studies.

Scott, those are good questions. We don't really know the answer to that in physics when the question is phrased in that manner.

But it is possible that the "before", that impetus, might be curled up inside the singularity.

You cannot visualize it. nobody can. Because visualizing it necessarily involves using our common paradigms of - yes - vision, passage of time, conception of dimension and such. Unfortunately, the best that physics can do is describe it mathematically - and mathematically, it does make sense. But I know that is no help in trying to actually understand it.

BTW, you know what is REALLY bogus? People who try to illustrate the big bang like it was some kind of loud, crazy explosion with stars flying out of it.

One of my favorite images in this context is a Simpsons episode (one of the Treehouse shows, I think) where they create a singularity that pulls the entire universe into it faster and faster, until there's a giant, robed man with white hair and bear, desperately holding on the to the edge of the screen before getting sucked in Himself.

edutcher said, "Actually, the Lefties want nothing to do with intellectual diversity or personal responsibility; that's why Uncle Saul's Rules are so popular with them. If you have personal responsibility, then people won't go running to Uncle Sugar to solve all their problems and intellectual diversity ends up badly for them because they always lose the argument.

PS I'd rather die than contradict my pal Irene, but Social Justice is the term they use when they want to talk about how they get to determine who gets what under their New Order."

I agree, edutcher; I had my tongue a bit in my check here.

But I also think "Social Justice" is a mutation of "Personal Responsibility" in the Leftie lexicon.

I also think "Social Justice" is a mutation of "Personal Responsibility" in the Leftie lexicon.

Yes, but their view of personal responsibility usually ends with their perception of having cared deeply about a problem, for all to see, and a I-gave-at-the-office mentality when it comes to actually solving it. Served with heaping helpings of fundamental attribution error, of course.

Yes, to counter the liberal ploy of hiring preferences that lock them out presently. Has anyone applied for a job lately? After the usual questions, you have 3 pages of surveys on your race, gender, military service, disability, welfare status, etc., to determine if you are a member of a privileged class. Even a convicted felon these days cuts in line in front of you!

Class warfare: If I were Beck, I'd be mighty suspicious of this liberal ploy/conspiracy.

J: Dude!! Pistol packing philosophizing hipster man!! You will recall that a very J-like student of Russell's quipped that the world might well be the sum of our imaginations at which Russell smacked the student violently on the back with a cane. Alas, today's "philosophers" play along and we have...you.

That's right, Mikey--someone here to f**k with yr Ayn-Randian hype and teabagger-Rotary club schtick. Too bad you can't just like limit the blog to all GOP flagwavers,eh --even AA values the First Amendment, at times.

yes, Lord Russell had some issues. Not my guru. Of course the usual GOP-Bircher ...or churchie/Temple boy will go on and on about those character issues (google.."ad hominem", M-ski), and thereby avoid engaging Russell's political views or technical phil. So it goes. Why bother with Reason when you can win via ..defamation? THe Kirby Olson strategy.

I see the sad little Insult Troll is back, trying to prove to him/herself and others, that s/he exists. I think the best thing that can be done, here is to ignore the Insult Troll, s/he seldom argues well and merely spews venom, your mileage may vary.

Neither sad, or little . That would be you Miss Joe, or rather yr sad--nay, pathetic-- attempt at writing English.

IM about reasoned debate, evidence, proof: not hysteria, or prevarication. Yr the one trafficing in lies, Joe. Ergo yr the troll. Maybe yap something like factual, or even coherent,instead of yr daily whines

I would implore those here to place a mental “Ignore” upon the Insult Troll…whose goal is to prove their own existence. When you acknowledge its existence by a response, it derives a momentary pleasure, a reaffirmation that even though lodged in its mother’s basement, it still is “someone.”

This guy J unfortunately is a complete idiot who infested my site for years. I finally went to controlled moderation just to get rid of him. He always does the same thing: simple, stupid rants that he believes are intelligent and well-ordered (NO ONE else qualifies them as such), followed by requests for a duel if anyone asks him to please be quiet. He's an imbecile and there is no point in arguing with him.

Lots of people get upset when it is mentioned that Big Bang theory is consistent with Genesis.

No reason to get upset — it's just wrong, and people who think so either don't know anything about astronomy or have never actually read Genesis I, which declares that “the waters” and dry land and “plants that bear seed, and trees bearing fruit” were all created before the sun and the moon and the stars — very, very different from what astronomy reveals and the Big Bang posits.

Not necessarily. God could have worked up the Earth at his tool bench, surrounded by potential universes drifting around probabilities around like so many bubbles, picked one he liked and popped us, trading the space with an already formed planet in a small rim star system.

Michael, you should read Hugh Ross sometime before you continue believing that view of Genesis' creation account. People take such a simplistic view of biblical writings, as though they can be picked up and scanned quickly and that's all that's needed. Look at what the text says a little more fully next time! Read a few different interpretations by scholars from various perspectives. Or if you're not willing to put in that much work (understandable, if you're not a believer and the subject doesn't particularly interest you), then please forgo opining on the precise meaning of particular passages.

"'intellectual diversity' legislation is a neoconservative ploy to secure the teaching of right-wing propaganda in the classroom"

The left believes this because that is precisely what they have done, so they're certain the right is planning the same.

Gramsci advised to the left to begin the "long march through the institutions," to capture cinema, theater, schools, universities, seminaries, newspapers, magazines, radio, television, and courts for the left.

I'm personally opposed to any efforts to impose "diversity" anywhere. Let the universities continue on their path of hiring ideological bedfellows. The only thing requiring legislation is the banning of outright political indoctrination in the classrooms where it is not appropriate. Students should not be subject to political rants in biology or sociology. But in areas like Poli Sci? Hell, is there a single undergrad in the country who doesn't know the political leanings of every Poli Sci prof in their department?

I don't think that the real issue is how physics is taught in college. Or, cosmology, biology, chemistry, math, etc. Rather, it is how the social sciences, humanities, and all those "studies" are taught. Most of these are highly subjective, which means that doing well in those subjects is to a great extent dependent upon agreeing with the professor. And, this is ultimately fairly self-perpetuating, because those who agree with their professors are likely to do better than those who don't, and are thus more likely to end up with PhDs and then get hired to teach those subjects.

I am reminded of a philosophy class I took some 40 years ago. I was repeatedly graded down on my interpretation of Plato. When I would challenge the professor, his response was that his answer was what the experts in the field believed to be the proper interpretation. This seemed too much like "You're wrong, and I'm right because I am the professor and you are the student" type of reasoning to me (and, I thought that philosophers were supposed to be logical, at least up until then). I happily went back to my math/science classes where I could actually prove the profs wrong, if they were wrong. Of course, because their positions were always open to refutation, they were much better about this than their humanities and social science compatriots. (This doesn't always work - my best friend failed a geology class because he disproved his prof's dissertation in front of the class).

Lots of people get upset when it is mentioned that Big Bang theory is consistent with Genesis.

No reason to get upset — it's just wrong, and people who think so either don't know anything about astronomy or have never actually read Genesis I, which declares that “the waters” and dry land and “plants that bear seed, and trees bearing fruit” were all created before the sun and the moon and the stars — very, very different from what astronomy reveals and the Big Bang posits.

All the order may be wrong (if you choose to read it literally rather than simply that "God said let there be light and there was light" sounded awfully cool), but the first line "In the beginning, god created the heavens and the earth" is about as much explanation as anybody else has. What is the big bang theory, after all. Something happened.

I've always believe science is the how, religion is the why.

Oh, but what I wanted to say is that all this 6000 year earth that Christians always get labeled with (when they are being called anti-science) isnt' really biblical. In the beginning is never assigned a timeline, that I recall.

There is no such thing as intellectual diversity, social justice, economic justice, or any other clap trap. It is all rhetoric with no substance. In the words of the great (LOL) Mayor Richard M. Daley- "It is silly. Just silly. It is Silly."

Very true, Ankar. But, at the same time simply because a scientist says something, doesn't make it science either. Which I think is at the root of the problem over origins. Some scientists like to make their scientific achievements in some areas into a license to opine on non-scientific declarations that because they sound like they're related to something science might be interested in, causes people to confuse it with some kind of really scientific opinion.

Like the origin of the cosmos.

At the same time, some scientists think their expertise in some specific areas of science means they can pick up general tidbits of loose information on other subjects, and be considered equal to those who have studied the subjects for decades.

Theology and interpretation of Scripture sometimes fall into these categories.

So, the debates devolve into declarations of authority by people who are using their credentials to argue points outside their fields or expertise.

Happens all the time with religious folks. But it also happens a lot with scientists, and more so with science-fans who have a hard time discerning between real science and Scientism.

6: 14, not exactly Mikeystein. It's spot on--addressed to reductionist, efficiency-minded techie-bots like Hayden, or you, or the rest of the Robert Swineleins around here. But sort of conceptual--like platonic chestnuts-- so I doubt yll get it. Capichay, satanist?

Goes for you as well, Paddystein. real scientists...build things, or engage in useful research--say, energy-related. Or medicine. or better bridges. Fake scientists, such as lil' Stevie HaWking, squawk about the latest pop-new age BS--string theory, etc Nerd-Co depends on that sort of hype.